Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 29, 2021

Thorne v. Christianbook, LLC

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:20-cv-09995
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Thorne v. Christianbook, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by March 1, 2021.

Who this affects

Braulio Thorne and Christianbook, LLC are directly affected by the discontinuance. The caption also refers to other similarly situated persons, but the opinion does not explain how the order or settlement affects them.

What happened

In Thorne v. Christianbook, LLC, the plaintiff told the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms.

The court discontinued the action without costs to either party. The case could be restored to the court’s calendar if an application was made by March 1, 2021; otherwise, the dismissal would become final and prevent refiling.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil also adjourned all other dates and deadlines indefinitely. The order did not decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Thorne v. Christianbook, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-09995
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Jan. 29, 2021

Background

Braulio Thorne brought the action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated persons. The court received a letter from Thorne stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not state the claims or the settlement’s terms.

Ruling

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. It also ordered that the action could be restored to the court’s calendar if an application to restore it was made by March 1, 2021. If no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice, meaning the action could not be brought again. All other dates and deadlines were adjourned indefinitely.

Effect

The order ended the case subject to the stated restoration deadline. It did not decide the underlying legal claims or approve or describe the settlement’s terms.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.